Art is a cultural construction.
Take all those artists from centuries ago who gained recognition after their death. No one gave jack shit about them when they were alive, but once they are dead and an "authorized voice" claim their works of art are "masterpieces", people start changing their views on that stuff. And that snowballs with each generation, "it passed the test of time" is one of the most-heard arguments.

Also, it's about the context and how well-distributed your music is. There was a funny experiment about a famous violinist who played for almost an hour in the subway, and almost nobody stopped to listen to him, while he played in a full theater some nights before. That's exactly what I think when people ask me why I don't like classic, untouchable rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zep.

Finally, there are some hippies who claim "art" is any product of any human activity. So taking a dump would be art for them. What a bunch of crap.

Art is a cultural construction.
Take all those artists from centuries ago who gained recognition after their death. No one gave jack shit about them when they were alive, but once they are dead and an "authorized voice" claim their works of art are "masterpieces", people start changing their views on that stuff. And that snowballs with each generation, "it passed the test of time" is one of the most-heard arguments.

Also, it's about the context and how well-distributed your music is. There was a funny experiment about a famous violinist who played for almost an hour in the subway, and almost nobody stopped to listen to him, while he played in a full theater some nights before. That's exactly what I think when people ask me why I don't like classic, untouchable rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zep.

Finally, there are some hippies who claim "art" is any product of any human activity. So taking a dump would be art for them. What a bunch of crap.

You take a random crowd in a subway as valid music critics?

Why not? Most people out there wouldn't deny the fact that classical music is artsy and influential, yet they need a theater with fucking XIX century courtains to appreciate it??_________________­

Just because it's "art", that doesnt make it any more valid, immune to criticism, or more then what it is. I have absolutely no patience for these people

Some sexually ambigous douchebag takes a dump on canvas and calls it "art".... good for him. That doesn't change the fact that it's literally shit on a canvas, and no amount of art critics ascribing ANY kind of meaning or artistic relevence to it will change that.

Art is a cultural construction.
Take all those artists from centuries ago who gained recognition after their death. No one gave jack shit about them when they were alive, but once they are dead and an "authorized voice" claim their works of art are "masterpieces", people start changing their views on that stuff. And that snowballs with each generation, "it passed the test of time" is one of the most-heard arguments.

Also, it's about the context and how well-distributed your music is. There was a funny experiment about a famous violinist who played for almost an hour in the subway, and almost nobody stopped to listen to him, while he played in a full theater some nights before. That's exactly what I think when people ask me why I don't like classic, untouchable rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zep.

Finally, there are some hippies who claim "art" is any product of any human activity. So taking a dump would be art for them. What a bunch of crap.

You take a random crowd in a subway as valid music critics?

Why not? Most people out there wouldn't deny the fact that classical music is artsy and influential, yet they need a theater with fucking XIX century courtains to appreciate it??

Your point is flawed. People in a subway have places to go, work to attend, girlfriends to fuck. They do not have the time to appreciate what is around them. The experiment is absurd.

As is the notion that art to be validated needs to be accepted by a majority or a high powered authoritative figure. Would you listen to the same stuff the President accepts as music? Do many multi platinum singers actually create art?

Art is a cultural construction.
Take all those artists from centuries ago who gained recognition after their death. No one gave jack shit about them when they were alive, but once they are dead and an "authorized voice" claim their works of art are "masterpieces", people start changing their views on that stuff. And that snowballs with each generation, "it passed the test of time" is one of the most-heard arguments.

Also, it's about the context and how well-distributed your music is. There was a funny experiment about a famous violinist who played for almost an hour in the subway, and almost nobody stopped to listen to him, while he played in a full theater some nights before. That's exactly what I think when people ask me why I don't like classic, untouchable rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zep.

Finally, there are some hippies who claim "art" is any product of any human activity. So taking a dump would be art for them. What a bunch of crap.

You take a random crowd in a subway as valid music critics?

Why not? Most people out there wouldn't deny the fact that classical music is artsy and influential, yet they need a theater with fucking XIX century courtains to appreciate it??

Your point is flawed. People in a subway have places to go, work to attend, girlfriends to fuck. They do not have the time to appreciate what is around them. The experiment is absurd.

As is the notion that art to be validated needs to be accepted by a majority or a high powered authoritative figure. Would you listen to the same stuff the President accepts as music? Do many multi platinum singers actually create art?

To believe so is absurd.

Most people would. Not the President (because he's not an authority or specialist in any kind of music, I guess?), but critics with some reputation have too much influence in what SOME people regard as 'art'.
It's not that frequent in the "UG", because we are used to invest (waste) time on this, but most people is too lazy or too busy to find that obscure label who pressed 14 copies of the best Darkthrone clone you'd heard this week. They'd rather listen to what Kerrang, Terrorizer, Pitchfork, their parents or that friend who knows a lot about post-punk have for them, and choose their favourites from that menu. Limited palette = limited taste, as simple as that.

And come on, not ALL the people in the metro is in SUCH a hurry._________________­

But rock music (at least at his beginning) never claimed to do "art" (in the strong sense of "aesthetic" or "aim to the form"). On the contrary : it was a reaction against this conception. It stated emotional immediacy and energy emphasis over measure and form, which imply a conceptualization on top of the compositional process. So in and of itself people are right not considering most groups of Heavy/Thrash/Black/Death/whatever as "art"._________________Hen kai Pan

But rock music (at least at his beginning) never claimed to do "art" (in the strong sense of "aesthetic" or "aim to the form"), on the contrary : it was a reaction against this conception. It stated emotional immediacy and energy emphasis over measure and form, which imply a conceptualization on top of the compositional process. So in and of itself most people are right not considering most groups of Heavy/Thrash/Black/Death/whatever as "art".

+ 1

Some bands could be considered as art I think (DSO, Abruptum, some math rock, etc., for instance), but most of it is as artistic as dance music. But people get vexed as soon as one tell them they listen to unartistic bands (which I of course listen to as well), just like if listening to whatever rock/metal band was like fighting for their honour. I remember when on a French webzine I stated about a black metal band that I like it wasn't art; and members started to tell me they wanted to meet me to explode my head, haha.